And as far as C Me Dance goes, if someone hadn't brought it up on this site, I doubt I would have ever heard of it...

Yea, it looks pretty bad, but any voting members who don't get on the forums aren't going to know what this even was. They'd see it on the ballot and assume they missed another "girl teaches bad boy life lessons through the power of prancing" movies.

And as far as C Me Dance goes, if someone hadn't brought it up on this site, I doubt I would have ever heard of it...

Yea, it looks pretty bad, but any voting members who don't get on the forums aren't going to know what this even was. They'd see it on the ballot and assume they missed another "girl teaches bad boy life lessons through the power of prancing" movies.

Yeah, it's one of those waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay under the radar crap fests that no one hears about, and thus no one cares for... except the churchy types, and they are all over stuff like this, because it promotes their particular agenda...

If it was a movie that was being released in more then a handful of theaters (and as far as I can tell, none of those theaters were near me) I should have totally started up a protest outside the theater, like the Christians did with Da Vinci Code, Golden Compass, Religulous, Dogma, and pretty much every other movie that either has a mild atheistic message, or speaks ill of the invisible man in the sky....

You know, the HeadRAZZBerry alerted enough of the membership to Dirty Love so that movie went on to sweep the Razzies. C Me Dance may have left the theatres so quickly he couldn't arrange a Razzies get together in some theatre to be tortured by, er, to watch it, but there may be some other way of getting the word out. Maybe have a Netflix/Razzies mailer to the membership encouraging them to burn out their eyes, er, to watch it? . . .

Otherwise, it will possibly be this year's Strange Wilderness, well-deserving of a nom if not a win, but never making the ballot because no one saw it.

I still wish people would have rented Chevy Chase's Funny Money to see just how howlingly bad that movie was.

Yea, it looks pretty bad, but any voting members who don't get on the forums aren't going to know what this even was. They'd see it on the ballot and assume they missed another "girl teaches bad boy life lessons through the power of prancing" movies.

Yeah, it's one of those waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay under the radar crap fests that no one hears about, and thus no one cares for... except the churchy types, and they are all over stuff like this, because it promotes their particular agenda...If it was a movie that was being released in more then a handful of theaters (and as far as I can tell, none of those theaters were near me) I should have totally started up a protest outside the theater, like the Christians did with Da Vinci Code, Golden Compass, Religulous, Dogma, and pretty much every other movie that either has a mild atheistic message, or speaks ill of the invisible man in the sky....[/QUOTE]

I had an instructor in college for my TV classes who made religious movies like C Me, and they looked about on par with it. I found it kinda funy. <---spelled right.

I had an instructor in college for my TV classes who made religious movies like C Me, and they looked about on par with it. I found it kinda funy. <---spelled right.

Did you not do anything stop these actions? Like perhaps tell the instructor that they lacked talent? Won't you feel bad when you find out that your instructor was actually involved in the C Me Dance... Yeah, I bet you'd feel pretty bad knowing you had a chance to stop it. :)

I actually went ahead and checked after you said that. I didn't see his name on there. And the thing about this guy was, he was a REALLY nice person... But he was a hardcore bastard about grades. You got graded more on how well your script was marked when you were going to direct than the final product itself. Like, I got marked down a bunch for not having straight enough lines to designate where the AV cues were. But he was so nice that you just couldn't get mad at the guy. And let's face it, the people who might actually want to see C Me Dance or his stuff are really actually probably looking for something like that. I'm positive none of us would've heard of it unless whoever brought it up had. (I could've sworn it was someone other than HRB)

If a gun is sitting on a table, and someone who doesn't like you much is five steps closer to it than you are, the gun becomes a pretty powerful thing in and of itself.

Actually, I even have the Supreme Court on my side on this one, at the point where they ruled that the First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Yes, words DO have power in their own right, and they should.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

The word "fire" has no power, until someone actually yells it, and people interpret it. Not a power in itself. For instance, I am shouting Fire over and over again as I type this... nothing. I am thinking the word fire... nothing.

You are mistaking the power of the person USING the word with the power of the word itself. Words are basically meaningless empty shells that are defined by the people. I for instance can not just make up a word, and everyone will automatically KNOW what I mean by it. If words themselves had power, then everyone would know exactly what I mean when I say "Grubbelfutts" or "Shpadoinkle" or even "Hordonik."

However, I am fairly sure no one has any idea what those are meant to convey (well, except perhaps Shpadoinkle)... 1) Because I made them up (again, except for Shpadoinkle) and 2) The words themselves have no power. It is through people's associations with those words, and vocal inflections, as well as body language that the spoken word gains meaning, and only through associations that the written word gains meaning.

If the above scenario, doesn't work for you, try this. Go to an average English-speaking person, and tell them "You're shoe is untied". They may look, but even if they don't they will be able to comprehend it. Now, find a person who doesn't speak English. Say the same thing to them. They will have no idea what you are saying, because the words have no power in and of themselves. They must be used by someone who understands them, and interpreted by someone who understands them, otherwise, they are meaningless dribble.

However, since we are obviously making no headway in this, I'd recomend it get dropped.

But actually saying it is the point of communication. If you don't believe there IS power within the word, I propose an experiment...Go into a crowded theater; for our purposes, we'd have to exclude ANY movie that is directed by Uwe Boll obviously...I'm not sure Hannah Montana is going to qualify either...but let's say you can actually find one...

So, you go into this theater and shout, "BANANAS!" In that action, I guarantee the reaction will not be anywhere close to the reaction you will get from "FIRE!" If you wish to do the comparison for yourself, I promise that we'll do what we can to take up a collection to bail you out when you carry out the second half of the experiment.

I'd be willing to bet that as a published author, Head Razz can also attest to the fact that phrasing ideas in certain ways can provide signficantly more impact than others, yet another demonstration of the inherent power of words.

Further, that power isn't necessarily invested in individuals. If Peewee Herman shouts fire in a crowded theater, the reaction probably won't be signficantly different than it would be coming from James Earl Jones.

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

[QUOTE=saturnwatcher]

Fire has no power, until someone actually says it, and people interpret it. Not a power in itself. For instance, I am shouting Fire over and over again as I type this... nothing. I am thinking the word fire... nothing.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Once more, your ideas do nothing to show power in the words THEMSELVES, but in the person using the word. The word is a tool. Without someone using it, it HAS NO POWER. A word can not spontaneously come into existence. A word can not shout itself in a crowded movie theater. Just like the gun, if NO ONE is using it, IT HAS NO POWER. Ergo, a word has no power in itself.

My final comment is simply this: I do understand the point you are attempting to make, but here is where your argument fails: A person with a pea shooter simply doesn't present the same threat as a person yielding a loaded A.K. 47. You may correctly argue that words are tools, but not all tools are created equal, just as not all words have the same potential impact due to their inherent meaning and perception of threat, which is the base of their potential power.

Similarly, not all of the potential is invested in the individual yielding the tool. A sharpshooter with a gun can do a lot more damage than a guy who is nearly blind and has never picked up a gun. Similarly, the mute who walks into a theater probably won't have much impact walking into the crowded theater and attempting to convey his message.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum